Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The limits of "computational photography"

yager.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 223 posts

Re: The limits of "computational photography"

#31

Post by jack1243star »

jlarocco wrote: post #26
delta_p_delta_x wrote: post #16

I would like to see computational photography applied to raw images from DSLRs and MILCs with APS-C and larger sensors. Perhaps Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Fujifilm could have built-in options in their cameras for ‘social media mode’, with a modicum of noise reduction (honestly unnecessary at ISOs lower than about 1600 for modern cameras), but drastically improved HDR and white balance. Many of these cameras are able to…

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for here. In my experience (and as seen in the article) the image processing in most digital cameras will already blow an iPhone out of the water. As far as I know, iPhone and Android aren't doing anything that isn't already done by digital cameras. They ramp up the settings on things like noise reduction and sharpness to balance out their tiny sensors, but it's more or less th…

> As far as I know, iPhone and Android aren't doing anything that isn't already done by digital cameras.

It's the opposite, most digital cameras aren't doing enough compared to smartphones, which have minimum control and look very good at 2M pixels. A proper camera with default settings looks bland in the hands of an amateur (too little saturation) and handles dynamic range poorly (without bracketing or post-processing). Plus it's never going to beat smartphones at connectivity (SNS), or portability.

Most people aren't going to spend time processing RAW files, or try to get in-camera picture control/film simulation etc. to look pleasing like photographers do.

Re: The limits of "computational photography"

#32

Post by jlarocco »

wombat_trouble wrote: post #28
jlarocco wrote: post #20

I love my big, heavy Nikon DSLR, and there's really no comparing the images it takes with the ones from my iPhone. Especially in "tricky" lighting situations they're not even in the same ballpark. That said, there can be just as much (or more) "computational photography" going on with a digital camera as there is with a modern phone, the difference is that cameras and processing software give control to the user, and…

"Real" cameras do a lot of postprocessing too, but it's generally oriented at producing faithful results. They might remove unambiguous and correctable issues such as vignetting or lens distortion, but they don't cross the line of inventing new details to make the photo look good. Computational photography techniques on smartphones, on the other hand, were always designed around squishy "user perception" goals to mak…

I didn't see any invented "new details" in the article's iPhone photos. Phones have small sensors and crap lenses, so they ramp up noise reduction and sharpness to make up for it. Turn up the ISO and max out the NR on the Fujifilm and the results would be nearly as bad.

Re: The limits of "computational photography"

#33

Post by jlarocco »

jack1243star wrote: post #31
jlarocco wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for here. In my experience (and as seen in the article) the image processing in most digital cameras will already blow an iPhone out of the water. As far as I know, iPhone and Android aren't doing anything that isn't already done by digital cameras. They ramp up the settings on things like noise reduction and sharpness to balance out their tiny sensors, but it's more or less th…

> As far as I know, iPhone and Android aren't doing anything that isn't already done by digital cameras. It's the opposite, most digital cameras aren't doing enough compared to smartphones, which have minimum control and look very good at 2M pixels. A proper camera with default settings looks bland in the hands of an amateur (too little saturation) and handles dynamic range poorly (without bracketing or post-processi…

I don't buy it.

Which cameras have worse "Auto" settings than a phone? I have two Fujifilms, a Panasonic, and a Nikon, and they all take better photos on "Auto" than my iPhone or any of my friends' Androids.

And who buys a camera in this day and age but doesn't want to play with the settings? Point and shoot users stick with their phones now.

Re: The limits of "computational photography"

#34

Post by jiggawatts »

indianmouse wrote: post #30
jiggawatts wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My $0.02 as some one with an expensive full-frame DSLR and and the latest iPhone Pro: There are entire categories of image quality that only Apple seems to bother even trying to improve — and then they leapt past everyone. A few years ago if you wanted to make a HDR, 4K, 60 fps Dolby Vision wide-gamut video… That would have cost you. Tens of thousands on cameras, displays, and software. It would have been a serious u…

Exactly like it was explained. People who speaks French or German (I'm just referring the language. No offense please), could only talk to people who know that language. While the majority is English speaking (Hypothetically!), it might make sense to speak that and also, whatever 10bit or 8Bit, the sensor size and capabilities matter. Most of the perception is seriously overrated with the iDevices (the displays and t…

It's not just overrated fanboyism. Here's a reviewer that shows that a modern iPhone's display quality is very directly comparable to a $35,000 Sony mastering monitor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_czpXW3yKE

That's not just insanely good, but it "just works" out of the box. No need to buy a HDR-capable colorimeter, buy separate HDR-capable calibration software for it, and then have to deal with the software workflow around this.

Just take a picture, share, done. All your friends with iDevices can immediately view your HDR photo or video, with calibrated quality comparable to professionally mastered content.

The software (the "computational" part of photography) is a complex, end-to-end thing that is absolutely required to utilise the full capability of displays and sensors.

Apple invested a ton of money into this. They licensed Dolby Vision, and use all sorts of AI-driven automatic picture tuning software to squeeze the most quality possible out of the hardware.

PS: The way I determine if a display has correct calibration is to load a test image on it, load the same test image on my iPhone, and then hold the phone next to the display! I know the phone is going to be correct, whereas everything else is virtually guaranteed to be atrociously bad.

Re: The limits of "computational photography"

#35

Post by xgbi »

jlarocco wrote: post #26
delta_p_delta_x wrote: post #16

I would like to see computational photography applied to raw images from DSLRs and MILCs with APS-C and larger sensors. Perhaps Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Fujifilm could have built-in options in their cameras for ‘social media mode’, with a modicum of noise reduction (honestly unnecessary at ISOs lower than about 1600 for modern cameras), but drastically improved HDR and white balance. Many of these cameras are able to…

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for here. In my experience (and as seen in the article) the image processing in most digital cameras will already blow an iPhone out of the water. As far as I know, iPhone and Android aren't doing anything that isn't already done by digital cameras. They ramp up the settings on things like noise reduction and sharpness to balance out their tiny sensors, but it's more or less th…

I think you’re missing what makes iPhone photos look so good; they do much more than just ramping up the sliders on sharpness.

When you take sunlit panoramas for instance, the iPhone will auto bracket and perform hdr treatment, it’s fantastic : you can see both the ground and the blue sky and the clouds. You can’t do that easily with a dslr, certainly not like a phone is doing right now, which is integrating the last x frames and modulating the digital shutter to capture multiple exposures.

Same when you take night shots, where the iPhone is integrating 1-2 s of sensor frames and compensating for movement with the accelerometer. You can take handheld shots of the sky, which is completely out of question with a standard dslr. Maybe Sony can do that with a very fast lens, in body stabilization and a very high iso, but this is 10k worth of equipment right there.

I’m still liking my dslr « real » bokeh and photos, but some of the innovation in digital photos should spill into dslr/mirrorless.

Re: The limits of "computational photography"

#36

Post by nl »

indianmouse wrote: post #30
jiggawatts wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My $0.02 as some one with an expensive full-frame DSLR and and the latest iPhone Pro: There are entire categories of image quality that only Apple seems to bother even trying to improve — and then they leapt past everyone. A few years ago if you wanted to make a HDR, 4K, 60 fps Dolby Vision wide-gamut video… That would have cost you. Tens of thousands on cameras, displays, and software. It would have been a serious u…

Exactly like it was explained. People who speaks French or German (I'm just referring the language. No offense please), could only talk to people who know that language. While the majority is English speaking (Hypothetically!), it might make sense to speak that and also, whatever 10bit or 8Bit, the sensor size and capabilities matter. Most of the perception is seriously overrated with the iDevices (the displays and t…

This isn't true.

I've done a lot of action photography. The stabilization of video really is pretty close to a GoPro (and why not - it's software). The ability to do 4K video is much better than most cameras.

> One needs all idevice and isoftware ecosystem to function and survive in the iworld. And that world is mostly controlled and directed by the company!

I don't understand this. You take the photos or movies off the phone and you can use them however you like. There's no particular vendor lock-in in this aspect, and certinaly no more than in the camera world where you choose which of the Sony/Canon/Nikon ecosystems you want to live in.

Re: The limits of "computational photography"

#37

Post by cycomanic »

jlarocco wrote: post #26
delta_p_delta_x wrote: post #16

I would like to see computational photography applied to raw images from DSLRs and MILCs with APS-C and larger sensors. Perhaps Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Fujifilm could have built-in options in their cameras for ‘social media mode’, with a modicum of noise reduction (honestly unnecessary at ISOs lower than about 1600 for modern cameras), but drastically improved HDR and white balance. Many of these cameras are able to…

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for here. In my experience (and as seen in the article) the image processing in most digital cameras will already blow an iPhone out of the water. As far as I know, iPhone and Android aren't doing anything that isn't already done by digital cameras. They ramp up the settings on things like noise reduction and sharpness to balance out their tiny sensors, but it's more or less th…

> I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for here. In my experience (and as seen in the article) the image processing in most digital cameras will already blow an iPhone out of the water.

> As far as I know, iPhone and Android aren't doing anything that isn't already done by digital cameras. They ramp up the settings on things like noise reduction and sharpness to balance out their tiny sensors, but it's more or less the same algorithms that the cameras are using.

That is not true AFAIK, phone cameras use things like "AI" enhancement amongst other things. The fake bokeh is one example of this, but there are others, like "AI sharpening" etc. . Also the amount of NR is typically much higher in a phone camera.

You are correct they typically also employ a lot more range compression and contrast enhancement to make pictures "pop" more, but you can often achieve similar things by adjusting camera settings especially in lower grade DSLRs.

Re: The limits of "computational photography"

#38

Post by AstixAndBelix »

Computational photography excels at certain uses. Noise reduction can be miraculous as of recently, exposure bracketing and automatic merging allows to take good pictures of a scene with a bright sky without obscuring everything, lens distortion, vignetting and chromatic aberration corrections work really well.

Of course you cannot really compensate for the lens not resolving enough detail, or not focusing close enough; but since the almost totality of photos taken on a phone will be seen on another mobile device these are the less important bits of the equation. Correct exposure and good colors always look good, regardless of how much you zoom the photo. OP's use case is very limited, and unfortunately didn't provide enough context about the nature of the photo.

Re: The limits of "computational photography"

#39

Post by killjoywashere »

> the relevant metric is what I call “photographic bandwidth” - the information-theoretic limit on the amount of optical data that can be absorbed by the camera under given photographic conditions (ambient light, exposure time, etc.).

You mean, "resolution"?

Re: The limits of "computational photography"

#40

Post by poulpy123 »

andreareina wrote: post #23

There’s some criticism about the event horizon photo of M87 because they had to do a lot of filling in based on a model of how black holes behave. IIRC they ran a hyperparameter search and picked the ones that were most consistent with the actual photons received.

Interferometers usually don't produce image but take power and phase measurements in the frequency plane. If there are enough points taken an image can be "reconstructed" if not the scientists will do model fitting
Post reply on HN